Friday, October 30, 2009

Hallow'een ( 'hallowed even' ) has an interesting background. It's original Celtic name was Samhain, and the Church co-opted it to make accepting the new religion more palatable for the natives, turning it into All Saint's Day. I was never that much into dress up, but I always liked it when I was a single gentleman because it was one day I could reliably expect to have 'adventures.'

To me,the costumes and the partying in the US are the equivalent of the Carnival celebrated in the Catholic world..just a time to get out of yourself and your role in life for a brief time before you remove the whiskey bottles and used condoms from your abode and assume holiness/real life again.

I almost think it's a universal human need. The Jews do it too, on Purim, which is a Spring festival commemorating an old victory over Haman in Persia, one of Amalek's many adherents and an interesting parallel to what's going on there today. Costumes and liquor abound, although nothing like N'awlins, Rio or Louisville on Derby Day.

Another universal human need connected with Hallow'een, I think, is the desire to be scared, but only in completely safe circumstances. Hence the popularity of special effects laden haunted houses and horror movies.

At the end,no matter what Freddie Kruger or theguy in th hockey mask does, you can always rest assured that it's only a movie.

Iran insists on simultaneously exchanging its low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel produced overseas, the state news agency said Friday, calling the demand a "red line" that will not be abandoned.

The condition undermines the basis of a UN-backed plan demanding Iran ship most of its uranium outside its borders to be further enriched in Russia and turned into fuel rods in France for use in a research reactor. That process could take up to a year. {...}

The news agency IRNA also said, however, that Iran has not yet given its answer to the UN-backed proposal to ship most of its enriched uranium overseas and wants to hold further negotiations on the plan.

The agency quoted an unidentified official as saying an Iranian response to the Western offer Thursday "did not contain a reply" to the UN-backed plan but simply expressed Iran's "positive attitude" and willingness to hold talks on the proposal.

Here's the game, and it's one that ought to be known to anyone with any knowledge of the Middle East: once the buyer makes an offer you like and thinks he has a deal,you up the price to see how much more you can squeeze out of him.

The original offer to the Iranians was an incredibly bad one for the West and an incredibly good one for the Mullahs.

First, Iran has no legal right to enrich uranium, and the UN Security Council said so in five successive Chapter VII resolutions - Resolution 1696, adopted July 31, 2006 for example - that happened because the IAEA found Iran in noncompliance of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran signed. Cutting a deal with Iran on its illegally enriched uranium, especially since any suspension of future enrichment wasn't included just legitimized Iran's illegal program and ensured that its violations of the treaty on enrichment can continue.

Rest assured that other countries plotting to illegally join the nuclear club have noted this. Why should Iran or anybody else pay attention to any treaties or international obligations in the future?

Second, Iran gets an enrichment and technological bonus.

The deal calls for Iran's uranium to be enriched to 19.75%, just a hair under the 20% classification of weapons grade uranium.While uranium can be enriched to much higher levels, 20% is considered adequate and the deal means Iran gets to leapfrog over their current level of technology.

Even worse, the enriched uranium can be easily reconverted into uranium hexafluoride gas and quickly enriched to weapons grade..or the Mullahs could also use the nuclear fuel to chemically extract plutonium to produce their nuclear weapons.

Yes, this is the agreement President Obama, who's made a fetish of nuclear disarmament signed off on! Except, of course there is no deal. There never has been.

What the Iranians will do now is delay some more and see what additional concessions and gimmees they can extract from the West and how much more time they can buy. If Obama and the West sweeten the pot, well and good, If not, after more time passes, they will either 'reluctantly' accept this bonanza or suddenly unveil a little nuclear surprise and claim that any further negotiations on the matter are unnecessary now - and laugh themselves silly at the gullible ferenghi, who was going to walk away from the rug merchant's stall telling everyone what a great deal he made.

The way this has been set up, it's a win for Iran any way it goes.

Of course, the one risk for the mullahs is that we could decide to change the rules of the game and upset the board any time we wanted to. Unfortunately, given the mullah's sense of whom they're dealing with, they apparently see it as a gamble well worth the risk.

I believe there's a verse by the Persian poet Hafez that fits this situation rather well:

"If he, being young and unskillful, seeks to gamble for silver and gold, Take his money my son, praising Allah...the fool was meant to be sold."

It's been deliberately constructed to be difficult to understand and read, and is rampant with thick, impenetrable legalese. It's 1,990 pages, longer than Tolstoy's "War And Peace" and has over 400,000 words.

“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.

The printout of the bill weighs over 19 pounds and is almost nearly nine inches high.

While Pelosi and her friends are citing the cost as a mere $894 million, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office puts the cost at $1.055 trillion.

Of course, both estimates are fantasy low ball. Since the bill has no provisions to allow anyone to check on people's legal status, the actual costs will be quite a bit higher as a new wave of illegal aliens comes across our non-borders to take advantage.

It calls for a vast expansion of MedicAid, which is already a major sinkhole for tax dollars as it is. and a part of why California's economy is in the proverbial toilet.

And yes, it does have a provision for a government run 'public option'.

Much is being made of the expected deficit reduction, estimated at $140 billion over the next decade.

I'll repeat what I said about this earlier, revised from when the cost was supposedly $829 billion while allegedly cutting the deficit by by $81 billion over a decade. Let's take the numbers down to earth, based on a cost of $1.055 trillion and 'savings' of $140 billion..

Here's a deal for you - I want you to refinance your mortgage now in 2009 dollars and spend $10,550 in fees and costs. In exchange you'll save a total of $1,400 in 2019 dollars over ten years..if my figures are correct and nothing changes - and we know it will.

Any takers out there?

If there are, I have some friends in Nigeria with an amazing business proposition for you - But Your Trust Is Required.

This is a wealth transfer and a tax bill, and it's beyond merely getting screwed. It's criminal rape and assault.

When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren't they worried about the impact of what they're doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?

You shilled for it, m'dear. Now wallow in it...or at least have the guts to openly admit how wrong you were.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Los Angeles' Orthodox Jewish community was shaken today by the shooting of two Jewish men in a North Hollywood synagogue parking garage today on their way to morning prayers.

The two men were both shot in the legs and are undergoing surgery.

The synagogue, Adat Yeshurun is in the heart of an Orthodox community filed with kosher markets, synagogues, Jewish schools and yeshivas.

My son goes to a yeshiva high school not too far from where the shooting took place,and while extra precautions are being taken, like most of the schools,larger synagogues and community buildings in the area their security is already pretty decent.

There is some value in knowing that you're a target.

Police are still viewing the surveillance cameras and looking for suspects.Based on what I know so far, there are two possibilities.

The least likely is that this was a lone wolf jihadi looking to shoot some Jews and he panicked and fired low.

The most likely possibility IMO is that one or both of the men are involved in a business deal with some rather interesting associates and this was intended as a warning or a reprisal.

You can indeed kill someone by shooting them in the leg if you sever the femural artery. But most shooters seeking to kill a man would go for a body shot ( the biggest target area) or follow that time honored credo:

"Two in the head, you know they're dead."

Either way, best wishes to the victims and their families.We'll see what develops,

Last Sunday on HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm episode, Larry David had a bit where he urinated on a picture of Jesus Christ in someone else's home. This was played for BIG YUCKS when those stoo-pid, Jeezus loving hicks took this as proof they had a real weeping Jesus on their hands....oooh, edgy!

"Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire. Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious."

There would be riots, fatwas and murder attempts for everyone involved – assuming the show were even allowed to air.{...}

there isn’t much chance of David and the rest of those involved facing any consequences for their mocking of Christianity. We don’t riot in response to such things – we might complain, but then we turn the other cheek.

Why not be really edgy, Larry? Wipe your but with a page from the Qu’ran and see what happens. Not only would it be equally edgy and disrespectful of the feelings of religious believers, but it would also present the opportunity for some of us to set up a “Larry David death pool” so we can place wagers on how long it might take offended Muslims to hunt you down and kill you – or whether you might be able to survive for a few years under heavy guard like Salman Rusdie.

Okay, Mr. David and HBO, full marks for cowardice. But for stupidity too. When you attack someone's faith and ridicule it, true believers may get outraged but a certain amount of what I'll call the swing votes accepts the ridicule and it colors their perceptions.

In today's climate, that's important.

Islam, the only religion the Left respects has a significant number of practitioners who are actively doing whatever is necessary to make it the dominating faith on the Earth, triumphant over all others. And many of those same practitioners have certain feelings about Jews as expressed in the Qu'ran and Hadiths that would not exactly bode well for Mr. David's survival, no matter how divorced he might be from any Jewish belief or observance.

You see, when a pathetic fool like Larry David urinates on Jesus and Christianity, he's really urinating on himself, whether he realizes it or not.

Feel free to send anything you find that you feel is worthy of a look to me at rmill2k@msn.com and I'll review it. This includes stuff you write yourself.Or if you prefer, you can send it to Natasha, our must reads Avatar..she loves to get mail.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Under the rather gloomy title of "Losing Israel", Bill Warner in American Thinker has an interesting article on how he sees Israel as badly losing the propaganda war to its enemies.

The primary problem he sees, aside from general Israeli ineptitude in this area is a tendency among many Jews in both Israel and the West to avoid labeling political Islamism and jihad as a threat, and he extends that to the West in general.

There's some truth to that, but I think the real reason, at least when it comes to Israel and Left leaning Jews in the West goes a bit deeper. And paradoxically, I see that as making the problem much easier to deal with, at least when it comes to Israel.

One thing that becomes quite apparent about many Israelis over time is that they have something of an inferiority complex. Undoubtedly, some of that comes from being a new country, but I think more of it comes from living under siege for years surrounded by people who would cheerfully murder you and your loved ones if they got the chance and call it a Holy Act.

This same mindset also causes Israelis to be fairly insular, especially given the widespread attempts by the West to buy peace and appease Islamic fascism at their expense. Anyone showing even a small amount of sympathy or understanding of Israel's plight, particularly a non-Jew, is greeted with open arms.

In order to be liked, Israelis on a national level will go to extraordinary lengths and make concessions far beyond what most countries would even consider feasible or even sensible.

The same thing is true of Left leaning Jews in the West. They want to be liked, to stay friends with their ideological comrades. That means that (assuming they care about their brethren in Israel at all) they can be easily manipulated and fooled by someone making facile remarks about being 'committed to Israel's security' even when the words and deeds don't match up in the least.

That's the crux of the problem.

Fortunately, the solution is fairly simple. Israel and Israelis simply need to begin doing what every other nation does - start operating from the perspective of their own self interest. And that includes taking steps to affect the perception people have of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Here's an example of how this might work.

Israeli are incensed, and rightfully so at the libelous Goldstone Report commissioned by the woefully misnamed UN Human Rights Council. The report as submitted essentially accuses the IDF of war crimes during their response to intensive rocket attacks on civilians by Hamas while absolving Hamas of targeting civilians, using civilians as human shields, committing atrocities on political opponents and making genocidal threats against a member nation.

What the Israelis did was to refuse to cooperate with with the openly biased investigators and to castigate them for a bogus and hypocritical effort.

But instead of that, let's suppose the Israelis quietly went to the UN General Secretary Ban K. Moon and told him in no uncertain terms that if the UN was going to ignore Israel's rights in the matter and try to make the country an international pariah merely for defending themselves, Israel would no longer have any incentive to cooperate with the UN on matters like UNRWA, Palestinian relief or UN access to Gaza or the Palestinian occupied areas of Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank).

If Israel had done that, the Goldstone report would likely not even have been commissioned, let alone approved by the UNHRC and sent to the Security Council. It would have been quashed.

If you think I'm mistaken, ask yourself: anyone hear about any member of Syrian Dictator Basher Assad's regime going to jail because of the UN tribunal over the Hariri assassination?

One of the prime weapons used to deligitimize Israel is rabidly biased reporting from the Middle East by the media. There are whole organizations who do a fine job attempting to combat this by monitoring the coverage and bringing it to a new manager or editor's attention.

What if foreign journalists were required to get Israeli approval based on their prior leanings before getting press credentials and to hire Israelis approved by the government as stringers to do their reporting for them 'for the journalists' own safety?' What if the Israelis imposed certain restrictions on what photos or film could be taken? Imagine if the implicit threat for biased coverage was lack of access to the story? As Eason Jordan, ex-of CNN confessed, it worked for Saddam Hussein for years. And it works for Hamas,Iran and a great many other entities today.

That's how many countries treat reporters there to cover unrest or other stories deemed important to their nation's image.

This sort of attitude also works when it comes to national policy.

For instance, when President Obama tried to insert himself into the Kashmir issue on Pakistan's side, India didn't make any pretense of negotiations or concessions. They were quite plain about telling Obama literally that he was barking up the wrong tree' and to keep his nose out of their affairs when it came to Kashmir.

India is an ally of America, it's economy is even more affected by their relationship with the US than Israel's is, they buy a lot of armaments and other strategic materials from America and they even have a major deal with the US designed to increase their civilian nuclear power.

Yet when they forcefully replied to an attempt to co-opt a matter they considered part of their national security, they suffered absolutely no penalty for it and the Obama Administration very noticeably decided not to make an issue of the matter.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's refusal to knuckle under to Obama's demand that Jews stop building homes and infrastructure in areas like Jerusalem that Obama unilaterally decided the Palestinians had a claim to had a similar effect, and more of the same kind of Israeli response in certain areas could very well have similar results.

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid’s has said the Senate bill will.

"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."

Lieberman added that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

Heh!

Lieberman realizes that a state 'opting out' of ObamaCare doesn't allow it to opt out of financing it, so if people in Texas or Maine decide they don't want it, they'll still be footing the bill for it.As well as paying the interest on the increased national debt.

In order to shove this through, Harry Reid will need all 58 Democrats and the 2 Independents that caucus with them if the Republicans stay together. One of those independents just told him 'no sale,'

I'm also hearing rumors that Olympia Snowe, who is not particularly happy at Reid and the Democrats forcing the public option is saying that she will stay with the GOP as well.

I'm cautiously optimistic, BUT KEEP CALLING YOUR SENATORS! UPDATE: Senator Snowe has confirmed that she plans to vote to block Reid's government run public option bill...

The first one devastated the Ministry of Justice, while the second one targeted the Baghdad Provincial Administration building. Hundreds were wounded and the death toll so far is at 155, including a number of children.

There are hundreds of funerals going on today.

SO, whodunnit, and why?

President Maliki blamed the remnants of al-Qaeda and disgruntled supporters of the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein, and a number of arrests have been made, but I'd be very surprised if those were the culprits. The ex-Ba'athists have no reason to, since they've mostly been rehabilitated. And if al-Qaeda in Iraq survivors had done this, they would likely be claiming credit for it, just to show they're stil a force to be reckoned with if nothing else.

I think Iran and its Shi'ite proxies are a much better suspect.

As you might remember, Iraq's Shi'ite Alliance, the largest bloc in Parliament of major Iranian-backed Shiite parties that propelled Maliki into power three years ago formed a new political alliance and dumped him as their candidate for re-election for the January 2010 election.

The new bloc is loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and Iran.

This put Maliki in an interesting position with the January elections coming up.His own Dawa Party is fairly small. So he could either try and cut a deal with minority Sunni parties or even the Kurds to strengthen his position, or try moving more towards a hard line Shiite pro-Iran position in hopes of pulling enough votes to have a coalition.

So far, he's been straddling both positions, and relying on his reputation as a strong leader who's brought security to the country. But ever since US troops pulled out of Iraq's cities,there have been a number of worsening bombing incidents, of which this is just the latest.

If Maliki's reputation as a strong provider of internal security can be wrecked sufficiently, it could be a major factor in turning him out of office come January and the Iran-friendly Shi'ite Alliance getting in. They and the Iranians have everything to gain by blowing up a few buildings.

Think of it as Lebanon redux.

If that happens the US would be faced with an increasingly hostile pro-Iranian regime in Iraq as we withdraw. Our final US withdrawal is scheduled for 2011, but if this scenario plays out it could be even earlier since the Iraqis have a referendum before then to vote on whether to request an earlier US withdrawal.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Once again with the Obama Administration, we're seeing something unique.

By now, most of you have heard that the Obama Administration - including the president himself - is targeting FOX News, publicly denigrating them as 'not a real news organization' and urging other networks not to report on their stories.

The White House even attempted to exclude FOX from a pool interview with 'Pay Czar' Kenneth Feinberg until the other four networks protested and said that they were going to pass on the interview unless FOX was included.

However they might feel about FOX,they understand that with this president, they could very well be next. Not to mention the fact that the party and politics of the Occupant of the White House tends to change every four years or so, and payback is not fun, to say the least.

Strained relations between the White House and the media are hardly anything new, but we've never seen an actual attempt to deligitimatize their role. Nor have we ever seen a sitting president directly involved.

Usually,the White House communications director, spokesmouth/press secretary or the vice president fulfills the role of attack dog while the president stands aloof from the fray and stays presidential.

Admittedly, the White House is probably smart not to let Joe Biden's mouth run amuck, but seeing a sitting president personally throwing mud like this is unheard of.

Even a number of Liberal and moderate Democrats are disturbed at the way the Obama White House is handling this and are wondering why they're behaving in this fashion.

Two words: damage control.

The news biz, especially with the 24 hour cycle that never sleeps is not only demanding but voracious in its appetite. The monster has to be fed.

FOX by it's nature is much more connected to alternative media such as blogs and talk radio, and as a consequence has enjoyed a number of scoops on items like ACORN, Van Jones, Charlie Rangel, the NEA scandal and the ObamaCare battle, and in some cases ( but by no means all) the other alphabet networks have followed, redacting the content.

What the Obama Administration is attempting to do is trying to turn the media into it's personal Ministry of Propaganda, where Obama and the administration's policies are extolled and exalted and criticism is demonized.

Small wonder Obama's White House communication's director Ann Dunne adores Chairman Mao. In Mao's China, people were even coerced into wearing the same clothes, let alone expressing the same ideas.

It's a positive sign that even many voices on the Left, including hardliners like Helen Thomas and Donna Brazile have publicly come out against Obama's war on FOX, for strategic and practical reasons if nothing else.

Mahmoud Abbas announced today that new Palestinian elections would take place on January 24, 2010.

Essentially, this is a shot over Hamas' bow, because they wanted the two mobs to finish consolidating before any new elections were held:

Hamas promptly condemned the decision, with its spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri saying Abbas' government can't hold the elections in Gaza.

"This announcement means that elections will take place only in the West Bank, cementing the Palestinian split instead of fixing the problem," Abu Zuhri said.

Fatah claims it's going to have balloting in East Jerusalem and Gaza as well as the parts of Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) it occupies. How they're going to be able to do that is anybody's guess.

Personally, I think this is the capo del tutti d'Ramallah's farewell. He was getting tired of the job anyway and it's time to retire, Hamas has vastly more support than he does and Arafat II has undoubtedly stolen enough by now to keep himself comfortable in his old age in Europe.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

The congressional election in New York State's 23rd District should be a walk for a Republican. It's upstate hunting and fishing country, pro-military, and went Republican even in 2008 by over 60%.

So what did the local GOP do? They refused to hold an open primary and nominated an oafish, well connected pro gay marriage pro-abortion 'moderate' named Dede Scozzafava who is endorsed by Daily Kos and a couple of the more Left leaning unions.

Conservatives in the district revolted, and local businessman Doug Hoffman is running a grassroots camapaign as the Conservative Party candidate. And he is eating Scozzafava's lunch, prompting numerous calls from conservative commentators nationwide for her to step down in favor of Hoffman.

(Robert Stacy McCain is on the ground in New York and has done a superb job of following this story from the beginning.)

The latest breaking news is that Sarah Palin has just stepped up and endorsed - Hoffman:

The people of the 23rd Congressional District of New York are ready to shake things up, and Doug Hoffman is coming on strong as Election Day approaches! He needs our help now.

The votes of every member of Congress affect every American, so it's important for all of us to pay attention to this important Congressional campaign in upstate New York. I am very pleased to announce my support for Doug Hoffman in his fight to be the next Representative from New York's 23rd Congressional district. It's my honor to endorse Doug and to do what I can to help him win, including having my political action committee, SarahPAC, donate to his campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law.

Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a "time for choosing."

The federal government borrows, spends, and prints too much money, while our national debt hits a record high. Government is growing while the private sector is shrinking, and unemployment is on the rise. Doug Hoffman is committed to ending the reckless spending in Washington, D.C. and the massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government. He is also fully committed to supporting our men and women in uniform as they seek to honorably complete their missions overseas.

And best of all, Doug Hoffman has not been anointed by any political machine.

Doug Hoffman stands for the principles that all Republicans should share: smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty.

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket.

Republicans and conservatives around the country are sending an important message to the Republican establishment in their outstanding grassroots support for Doug Hoffman: no more politics as usual.

You can help Doug by visiting his official website below and joining me in supporting his campaign:

What Governor Palin is letting the political establishment and the electorate know that she has no plans to be co-opted into business as usual.

This is a good example of her understanding of something that seems lost on most politicians. The tea party movement and the general disaffection of the electorate isn't necessarily pro-Republican,and unless the GOP realizes that and start standing for principle, they are simply going to continue to be marginalized.

In the past few months, a brand new organization has come to light called J Street that bills itself as 'pro-Israel, pro Peace.'

Later on this month, they're holding their first national conference and the event has attracted some controversy. Who is J Street? And are they really pro-Israel and pro-peace?

J Street bills itself as 'an alternative to AIPAC' founded to 'support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the U.S. role in the region.' It claims to support 'two states living side-by-side in peace and security'( meaning Israel and a second Arab Palestinian state) and to support 'diplomatic solutions over military ones, including in Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialogue over confrontation with a wide range of countries and actors when conflicts do arise.'

In essence, J Street supports the Saudi 'peace' ultimatum, including the creation of thousands of Jewish refugees by uprooting them from their homes in Judea and Samaria(AKA the West Bank), the redividing of Jerusalem and the admission of Arab 'refugees' into Israel. There's not a single word or mention I could find concerning any compensation or recognition for the almost 1 million Jewish refugees of the 1948 conflict.

J Street is fully on board with the Obama Administration's extreme positions, including the racist attitude of telling Jews where they may live and build simply because they're Jews. That's known as a 'complete settlement freeze' in their lingo.

In fact, while J Street supports Arab apartheid in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem, there's not a single word about Israel as a Jewish State, merely as a 'democratic home.'

They also demand what they term 'a new peace treaty' between Israel and Syria, without mentioning that Syria's dictator Bashir Assad has stated repeatedly that Israel would need to give up the strategic Golan Heights to Syria and Hezbollah before any negotiations even commence.

And on Iran, J Street applauds the Obama Administration's diplomatic engagement with the Mullahs and opposes harsh sanctions, let alone any military response to Iran's growing nuclear capacity.

In fact, that's what J Street is ultimately about. It was created simply as a fig leaf for the Obama Administration's questionable positions on Israel. As they put it, "Providing President Obama with support as he pursues the two-state solution will be J Street’s number one priority in 2009 and 2010."

That message becomes even more clear when you look at who's on the advisory board and who supports the organization.

Let's start with J Street’s director, Jeremy Ben-Ami.

Lenny Ben-David at Pajamas media has a few interesting questions for him:

You served as Fenton Communications’ senior vice president until you established J Street, launched in 2008. In early 2009, Fenton signed contracts with a Qatari foundation to lead an 18-month long anti-Israel campaign in the United States with a special focus on campuses. The actual text of the contract called for: “An international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks against schools in Gaza.”

Did you sever your ties with Fenton when you began J Street? Do you retain any role or holdings in Fenton today? Did you play any role in introducing Fenton to the Qatari agents or play any role in facilitating the contract? Were you aware of the negotiations or the contract signed on March 12, 2009?

These questions are relevant because it’s important to know if J Street’s refusal to support Israel’s anti-Hamas military campaign was influenced by your ties with Fenton, whose promotional material claims: “We only represent people and projects we believe in.”

Were there discussions with Fenton prior to J Street’s refusal to condemn the Goldstone Report on Gaza, a report that certainly serves the Fenton/Qatari interests? Were there communications with Fenton surrounding J Street’s support for Rep. Donna Edwards who refused to sign a congressional resolution supporting Israeli actions in Gaza?

And about anti-Israel financing:

You were recently asked in an interview about funds J Street received from Palestinians, Arab-Americans, and Iranian-Americans, to which you answered: “J Street does have some Arab and Muslim donors — about five. These are individuals, not organizations, corporations or foreign countries. Well over 90 percent of our money comes from Jewish Americans and Christians.”

Did you really say J Street has only five Arab and Muslim donors? A partial listing quickly extracted from the U.S. Federal Election Commission shows more than 30 contributors, many with ties to Arab-American organizations.

So far, only J Street’s Political Action Committee has disclosed its contributors, as mandated by federal law. But who are the donors to the main J Street organization? Make that list public, and these pesky inquiries will probably go away.

When asked about J Street’s funding by the Jerusalem Post — the newspaper that ran the original exposé — you responded “at most 3 percent” of contributors were Muslim or Arab. Now you state that the figure may be closer to 10 percent. One tenth of J Street’s budget of $3 million, or $300,000, is a substantial sum. Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be “pro-Israel?”

And it's not just Arabs. For instance, one member of the organization's finance committee, Genevieve Lynch, was a participant of the National Iranian American Council. Judith Barnett, a former registered agent for Saudi Arabia, is a donor and is prominent on the J Street Advisory Council. while Nancy Dutton, who until 2008 represented the Saudis as an attorney against her fellow Americans donates to J Street's political action committee which has been financing anti-Israeli congressional candidates.

The advisory council itself is littered with Rabbis for Obama, prominent Leftists like Eli Pariser, the Board President of MoveOn.org, ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee, Markos Kounalakis who publishes The Washington Monthly and Stanley Sheinbaum, and anti-Israel former diplomats like Rob Malley and Nicholas Veliotes.

A look at the upcoming conference is also revealing. The scheduled keynote speakers include Obama's staunchly anti-Israel NSA General James Jones, and two US senators not exactly noted for their pro-Israel bonifides ( John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, who's rumored to be Obama's next SecDef).

Also speaking will be Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the US Reform movement, who once described J Street's positions as "deeply distressing, morally deficient and profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and appallingly naïve." Apparently his pro-Obama comrades convinced him to take one for the Cause.

This panel will be attended by the likes of Helena Cobban, Richard Silverstein, Phil Weiss, and Max Blumenthal, among others. Silverstein claims that J-Street is only providing them a platform but not endorsing their views. Really, a platform is more than enough. These people are by no means pro-Israel - they are unapologetically anti-Israel - the false label that J-Street insists on attaching to itself.

In fact Helena Cobban has just been named the executive director of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). CNI is one of those organizations run by former Middle East diplomats (in this case Eugene Bird) with strong ties to Saudi Arabia. So while they agitate against the so-called "Israel Lobby" they are part of what Steven Emerson once referred to the American House of Saud. Cobban believes that Hamas is a legitimate organization - she goes beyond saying Israel must negotiate with Hamas - and therefore can accurately be called a terror supporter.

Sponsors include the remnants of the EU funded Israeli far Left - people like the Meretz party, Ameinu, and Brit Tzedek among others, taking time off from their efforts to impede Jews building homes and the IDF's efforts to protect Israelis.

The American sponsors include the usual suspects, including Peace Now, The Israel Policy Forum, The Foundation For Middle East Peace and the New Israel Fund.

The bottom line was best summed up by Stephen Walt, co-author of the The Israel Lobby, who recently said in Mother Jones magazine, “This is a key moment in the debate. It will be important whether Obama gets enough cover from J Street and the Israel Policy Forum so Obama can say, ‘AIPAC is not representative of the American Jewish community.’”

Make no mistake about it. J Street has a right to their poisonous views, and if George Soros wants to use his money to fund an anti-Israel lobby and can get Jews to participate, he has that right.

But let's not mistake J Street for anything but what it is - an anti-Israel, self hating dead end.

"We don't want to isolate people because they don't feel quite so comfortable with 'pro-Israel,' so we say 'pro-peace,'" said American University junior Lauren Barr of the "J Street U" slogan, "but behind that is 'pro-Israel.'"

Barr, secretary of the J Street U student board that decided the slogan's terminology, explained that on campus, "people feel alienated when the conversation revolves around a connection to Israel only, because people feel connected to Palestine, people feel connected to social justice, people feel connected to the Middle East."

She noted that the individual student chapters would be free to add "pro-Israel," "pro-Israel, pro-Palestine," or other wording that they felt would be effective on this issue, since "it's up to the individuals on campus to know their audience."

Indeed...treasonous,cowardly self-hating little scumbags worthy of Dante's lowest circle of Hell. But at least one can give them points for honesty and truth in labeling.

Dick Cheney received the Keeper of the Flame Award last night from the Center For Security Policy, and he had a few things he wanted to say. Here are some excerpts, with the complete speech on video below:

Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith. ...

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

....

I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime in Tehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran's democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran's democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work.

....

We should all be concerned as well with the direction of policy on Afghanistan. For quite a while, the cause of our military in that country went pretty much unquestioned, even on the left. The effort was routinely praised by way of contrast to Iraq, which many wrote off as a failure until the surge proved them wrong. Now suddenly – and despite our success in Iraq – we’re hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security.

Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.

President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” End quote.

Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America’s armed forces. “I will give you a clear mission,” he said, “defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.”

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

...

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

Eight years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed. So you would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years. No one knows just where that path will lead, but I can promise you this: There will always be plenty of us willing to stand up for the policies and the people that have kept this country safe.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

And that has the Angry Left absolutely seething. So a startup Leftard publisher is coming out of the wordwork with their own hit job version, due out the same day as Palin's book, one day after Oprah has her on to try and rejuvenate Oprah's sagging ratings and credibility. And as you'll notice, with a markedly similar cover design and title in a clear attempt to make a few bucks confusing people.

"Going Rouge - An American Nightmare" is only available in paper online from this sleazy publisher or as an e-book, and of course, ( unlike Sarah's actual book) there are no refunds.

The creative contributors of this hit piece are just lovely.It's edited by Richard Kim and Betsy Reed, two senior editors for the hard Left Nation Magazine, and the excerpts are done by Leftard icons like Max Blumenthal, Michelle Goldberg, Jane Hamsher, Naomi Klein, Dahlia Lithwick,Joe Conason, John Nichols, Matt Taibbi, Michael Tomasky and Katrina vanden Heuvel.

I suppose David Corn, Andrew Sullivan, Keith Olbermann and Maureen Dowd were either too busy or too pricy.

Each order of "Going Rouge' comes with a souvenir Special Edition plastic waterproof photo suitable for spitting on during the Ten Minute Hate.

I may have made that last one up.

I would not be surprised to see HarperCollins slap an injuction on these people as this is a clear effort to to deceive the public and constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition.

My goodness, but the Left is deathly afraid of this woman.

And it will be even worse once her book comes out. Sarah Palin could very well end upo the first billionaire political author.

This one's particularly juicy because it's in Philadelphia..and as part of this, we see Bertha and the other ACORN talking heads spouting off to the dinosaur media about how James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles were 'kicked out' as soon as they mentioned prostitution. In fact, they mentioned prostitution early on, were there thirty two minutes and left with a future appointment to come back.

It also intercuts what the ACORN employee involved told the Soros funded 'Media Matters' with the reality of what actually happened. And let's just say that somebody's lying, and it ain't Okeefe's video camera.

The master stroke is the sting at the end. Breitbart reveals that large parts of the audio are deliberately muted because of ACORN's ongoing lawsuit against Breitbart, Giles and O'Keefe:

**UPDATE 2:24 PM EST** We muted the audio of the ACORN employees on the video released today due to ACORN’s legal attack upon us. We call upon ACORN to state publicly now that it has no objection to the public release of any its employees oral statements to us. If they are interested in the truth, why wouldn’t they do so?

Heh! This is only Part 1...it's like watching a cat playing with a mouse.

The Watcher's Council is a group of some of the most incisive blogs in the`sphere. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one of their own and one from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.

Feel free to send anything you find that you feel is worthy of a look to me at rmill2k@msn.com and I'll review it. This includes stuff you write yourself.Or if you prefer, you can send it to Natasha, our must reads Avatar..she loves to get mail.